The tokina still seems like the best WA out there, half the price of the 16-35 similar price to the 17-40 with a constant 2.8 aperture much sharper than both and nearly as sharp as the Nikon 14-24.

Shame like the Nikon it cannot take any filters which is where the 16-35mm wins. Also the Tokina Nikon and 16-35mm weight a fair amount more than the 17-40. Touch choice but the 16-35mm is a ridiculous price for its performance compared to the rest of the market.

But I thought the 17-40 was both internal focusing and internal zooming (like all the 70-200s are)... so why is the front element moving at all? The sentence quoted above would imply that zooming moves the front element.

But I thought the 17-40 was both internal focusing and internal zooming (like all the 70-200s are)... so why is the front element moving at all? The sentence quoted above would imply that zooming moves the front element.

Please clarify, thanks.

- A

Hey yes, the front element moves in and out when zooming by about 5mm , but the filter ring is on the edge and is constant. And yes, pretty much every lens isn't truly weather sealed without that front filter (which I don't use), but I don't want people to be even *more* confused.

Is the 17-40 really a metal body? Mine appears to be engineering plastic as the main body with a metal zoom ring.

I didn't look anything up to make sure, it *feels* metal, like my 24-70, 70-200, 24 tilt shift and not plastic like the 100mm L... I could be wrong and I'd correct it in the review if we find otherwise.

The tokina still seems like the best WA out there, half the price of the 16-35 similar price to the 17-40 with a constant 2.8 aperture much sharper than both and nearly as sharp as the Nikon 14-24.

Shame like the Nikon it cannot take any filters which is where the 16-35mm wins. Also the Tokina Nikon and 16-35mm weight a fair amount more than the 17-40. Touch choice but the 16-35mm is a ridiculous price for its performance compared to the rest of the market.

Which tokina are you talking about? I was trying to specifically say "Canon" as in the brand. I've definitely been interested by the third party options but haven't had much chance to use them.

The tokina still seems like the best WA out there, half the price of the 16-35 similar price to the 17-40 with a constant 2.8 aperture much sharper than both and nearly as sharp as the Nikon 14-24.

Shame like the Nikon it cannot take any filters which is where the 16-35mm wins. Also the Tokina Nikon and 16-35mm weight a fair amount more than the 17-40. Touch choice but the 16-35mm is a ridiculous price for its performance compared to the rest of the market.

Now, you can't use a CPL on that rig, but at those focal lengths a CPL is an unqualified disaster. Your FOV is so wide that you are all but guaranteed to get that funky 'faux-vignetting' from the CPL effect (the sky will inconsistently be light and dark), and that's not really back-out-able in post. But that rig will allow ND filters, ND grads, etc.

I've owned the 16-35, 16-35 II & the 17-40 and 17-40 is a poor substitue for either 16-36 lens especially for landscape. I know of few zoom lenses in the Canon line-up with better color and contrast than a 16-35. The 17-40 may be a tad sharper into the corners in a few FLs than the 16-35 II, but that is the extent of its claim to fame.

Having said this, I've sold all of them in favor of the 14-24G. Yes, I am forced to use a D800E in order to use the 14-24G but sacrifices have to be made. Actually, I think I am running the best tandem in 35mm format landscape zoom photography, the 5D3/24-70 II and the D800E/14-24G.

Thanks for another nice review, Justin. The single biggest factor for regarding these two options is purpose. If someone wants to do creative wide angle work at maximum aperture, the 17-40L is not your choice. If you primarily want to do landscapes, though, the 16-35LII and the 17-40L are very similar when stopped down.

I own a 17-40L, and I don't love it, but I also haven't yet found a replacement that makes a lot of sense. It does produce really nice images, focuses well, and has good color, but it just isn't amazing. I like doing LE work sometimes, and the 77mm front element means that I have plenty of filter options, which just isn't true of something like the Tokina 16-28 or even the mighty Nikon.

Thanks for another nice review, Justin. The single biggest factor for regarding these two options is purpose. If someone wants to do creative wide angle work at maximum aperture, the 17-40L is not your choice. If you primarily want to do landscapes, though, the 16-35LII and the 17-40L are very similar when stopped down.

I own a 17-40L, and I don't love it, but I also haven't yet found a replacement that makes a lot of sense. It does produce really nice images, focuses well, and has good color, but it just isn't amazing. I like doing LE work sometimes, and the 77mm front element means that I have plenty of filter options, which just isn't true of something like the Tokina 16-28 or even the mighty Nikon.

"I own a 17-40L, and I don't love it." Perfect statement. After working with the 16-35 for quite a while I also concluded that it wasn't "worth it" as a replacement either, at least not for my work.

The Tokina is very sharp for its price! Shame its not weather sealed neither does it take filters but vs the 16-35mm its a no brainer its half the price, especially for a specialist lens for most people.

Thanks for another nice review, Justin. The single biggest factor for regarding these two options is purpose. If someone wants to do creative wide angle work at maximum aperture, the 17-40L is not your choice. If you primarily want to do landscapes, though, the 16-35LII and the 17-40L are very similar when stopped down.

I own a 17-40L, and I don't love it, but I also haven't yet found a replacement that makes a lot of sense. It does produce really nice images, focuses well, and has good color, but it just isn't amazing. I like doing LE work sometimes, and the 77mm front element means that I have plenty of filter options, which just isn't true of something like the Tokina 16-28 or even the mighty Nikon.

"I own a 17-40L, and I don't love it." Perfect statement. After working with the 16-35 for quite a while I also concluded that it wasn't "worth it" as a replacement either, at least not for my work.

I'm slated to do a review on the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 shortly. Since I do like my Tamron 24-70mm (and it is a wide 24mm), I'm thinking that if I really like the Samyang it might be a replacement. But then the whole filter thing becomes an issue. I have 6 stop ND filter in 82mm, but I might have to get a 10 stopper and just do LE work with the Tamron if I go that route. I have a square filter system, too (Cokin), but it's effective limit is a 77mm before it starts really vignetting.